Hi Lauren, thanks for your clarification! Here are a few considerations which might affect the applicability of the point you brought up:
Calum Miller argues that the impact of contraceptive access on abortion rates is more unclear than typically claimed. I haven’t looked enough into his sources to endorse his claim, but you might find it of interest.
Although it’s deeply unfortunate that “unsafe” abortions have worse health outcomes for women, the health outcome for future children is the same either way. It seems to me that in absolute scale, the moral difference between “safe” and “unsafe” abortions is dominated by other factors. As a result, I don’t think the difference between “safe” and “unsafe” abortions is sufficient in and of itself to invalidate the argument (which I lay out in further detail here) for suspending support for charities which decrease the amount of near-term future people.
To be clear, this is in response to your conclusion:
Which I disagree with, for the reason I listed above.
Hi Lauren, thanks for your clarification! Here are a few considerations which might affect the applicability of the point you brought up:
Calum Miller argues that the impact of contraceptive access on abortion rates is more unclear than typically claimed. I haven’t looked enough into his sources to endorse his claim, but you might find it of interest.
Although it’s deeply unfortunate that “unsafe” abortions have worse health outcomes for women, the health outcome for future children is the same either way. It seems to me that in absolute scale, the moral difference between “safe” and “unsafe” abortions is dominated by other factors. As a result, I don’t think the difference between “safe” and “unsafe” abortions is sufficient in and of itself to invalidate the argument (which I lay out in further detail here) for suspending support for charities which decrease the amount of near-term future people.